NOTICE OF Council
MEETING
PUBLIC SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA - A
An
Ordinary Meeting of City of Parramatta Council will be held in the Cloister
Function Rooms, St Patrick's Cathedral, 1 Marist Place, Parramatta on Monday,
28 March 2022 at 6:30pm.
Brett Newman
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
5 CONFIRMATION
OF MINUTES
Extraordinary
Council – 21 March 2022................................................................... 3
13 For Council Decision
13.5 LATE
REPORT: Quarterly Budget Review - December 2021........ 13
14 Notices of Motion
14.1 Peninsula
Park, Wentworth Point......................................................... 32
MINUTES OF THE Extraordinary Council Meeting of City of
Parramatta Council HELD IN THE CLOISTER FUNCTION ROOMS, ST
PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL 1 MARIST PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON Monday, 21 March 2022 AT 6:30pm
These
are draft minutes and are subject to confirmation by Council at its next meeting.
The confirmed minutes will replace this draft version on the website once confirmed.
PRESENT
The Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis and Councillors Phil
Bradley, Kellie Darley, Pierre Esber, Michelle Garrard, Henry Green, Ange
Humphries, Cameron Maclean, Paul Noack, Sameer Pandey, Dr Patricia Prociv, Dan
Siviero, Georgina Valjak, Donna Wang and Lorraine Wearne.
1. OPENING
MEETING
The Lord Mayor, Councillor Donna Davis, opened the meeting
at 6:37pm.
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF THE TRADITIONAL OWNERS OF LAND
The
Lord Mayor acknowledged Burramattagal people of The Darug Nation as the
traditional owners of land, and paid respect to their ancient culture and to
their elders past, present and emerging.
3. WEBCASTING
ANNOUNCEMENT
The Lord Mayor advised that this public meeting is being
recorded and streamed live on the internet. The recording will also be archived
and made available on Council’s website.
The Lord Mayor further advised that all care will be taken
to maintain privacy, however as a visitor in the public gallery, the public
should be aware that their presence may be recorded.
4. OTHER
RECORDING OF MEETING ANOUNCEMENT
As per Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, the
recording of the Council Meeting by the public using any device, audio or
video, is only permitted with Council permission. Recording a Council Meeting
without permission may result in the individual being expelled from the Meeting.
5. CONFIRMATION
OF MINUTES
There were no confirmation of minutes at this meeting.
6. APOLOGIES/REQUESTS
FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE
3683
|
RESOLVED (Bradley/Green)
That the request to attend the Extraordinary
Council Meeting dated 21 March 2022 via remote means submitted by the
following Councillors due to personal reasons, be accepted:
-
Councillor Siviero;
-
Councillor Wearne.
|
7. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no Declarations of
Interest made at this meeting.
8. Minutes of the Lord Mayor
There were no minutes of the Lord Mayor at this meeting.
9. Public Forum
9.1
|
SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 1: Item 11.2 : Pre-exhibition - Planning Proposal,
draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 195 Church
Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St
John's Anglican Church)
REFERENCE RZ/5/2018 -
D08455136
FROM Cheryl Bates, Chair, Parramatta Regional Branch, National Trust
Parramatta Regional Branch.
|
|
I
would express my concern that no report is available as of 3:00PM on Thursday
17 March 2022 to allow the community to make comment on this Agenda item.
The Parramatta Regional Branch has
continued to voice their opposition to the magnitude of this development that
will severely impact on this significant Parramatta heritage item that is
equally important to the State of New South Wales and Australia.
In the absence of documentation being
publicly available for this agenda item, we would like to restate points
identified in our previous public forum submission on 21 February 2022. We
focus on the developer’s insistence to demolish the Parish Hall.
The demolition of a heritage item should
be based on whether the heritage item still maintains its level of
significance and not whether a significant historical feature of the City of
Parramatta can be traded off for some street art or some other “public
purpose” simply because it is convenient for a developer to do so.
It is also my understanding that the removal
of a heritage item from Schedule 5 of LEP 2011 requires the same process as
including a heritage item in Schedule 5. The Parramatta Regional Branch, and
many others would certainly respond negatively to any advertising to remove
the heritage listing for St John’s Parish Hall. It is simply not good
enough to say “delist” a heritage item without the proper
heritage consideration being given to its removal from Schedule 5.
Section 7.5(1) of the EPA Act requires a
planning agreement to be advertised.
In summary, and in the words of the
Department in their letter to Council dated 8 September 2020, “There
still remains no strong evidence to allow the removal of St John’s Parish
Hall from the heritage schedule of Parramatta Local Environmental
Plan”.
STAFF
RESPONSE
No staff response provided.
|
9.2
|
SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 2: Item 13.1 CBD Planning Proposal and DPE’s
GML Heritage Report Concerns
REFERENCE RZ/5/2018 -
D08455119
FROM James Colman
|
|
My
name is James Colman. I am an architect and planner with a particular
interest in North Parramatta and its potential to become a special part of
this great city. I am not a ratepayer but I am confident I speak for
Sydney-siders everywhere who are unhappy with the current plans for the
north. I strongly support Councillor Bradley's motion requesting the
Department of Planning to immediately reconsider the advice which it received
in 2018 from GML, one of the country's most respected heritage consultants.
My reasons are as follows.
In their report, GML heritage consultants
recommended - inter alia - that there should be no incentives for high rise
development adjacent to heritage items and conservation area. The draft CBD
Planning Proposal does the exact opposite.
In my expert opinion as an architect and
urban designer, the surest way to destroy the amenity of an area rich in
heritage is to allow high rise commercial development to proliferate. If
Councillors seek evidence in support of this contention they need look no
further than the graphic images in the Council's own report on the North East
Planning Investigation Area of 2021.
Offering bonus floor space and additional
height based on dubious claims of "design excellence" is a false
policy. No matter that the building has been excellently designed: the higher
the building, the longer the shadows. The pedestrian environment becomes more
unpleasant. Sky views are lost and wind turbulence at street level is
frequent. Any heritage item nearby will suffer. And the architectural
incompatibility between heritage buildings and modern commercial towers is
likely to be gross.
What people really want is design
excellence at street level. That is asking for a miracle under the design excellence
height incentive proposal. Our Department of Planning is constantly calling
for better place making, better urban design, and respect for heritage. Yet
the same government is encouraging this Council to create a mini-CBD in the
north, ignoring the expert advice from its own heritage consultants.
I remind the Department of Planning and
Councillors that the CBD PP is not yet determined. For North Parra there is
still time for both the Department and the Council to rethink.
And there is now an exciting new
opportunity for the new Council to lead with a new plan which properly
respects the unique and rich heritage of North Parramatta.
I strongly urge you to support Councillor
Bradley's motion.
STAFF
RESPONSE
No staff response provided.
|
9.3
|
SUBJECT PUBLIC FORUM 3: Item 13.2 CBD Planning Proposal Concerns Regarding
Infrastructure Funding, Flooding and Design
REFERENCE F2022/00105
- D08455646
FROM Laurie Bennett
|
|
Thank
you for allowing me to make this presentation to you, about probably the most
important issue concerning the Council in this term. It will impact the
direction, composition, and vision for our city’s growth (it could be
for Good or BAD). Your decision tonight will remain long after you have left
the Council Chambers. Here is your opportunity to fix the failures of
previous Councils and Various Government Departments.
I strongly support Councillor
Bradley’s request for the Department of Planning to carefully
reconsider the CBD Planning Proposal having regard to the reasons set out in
his motion.
Regarding Item 2 of the motion, I
understand that the Council has not yet endorsed a CBD flood evacuation plan,
contrary to official SES advice in the light of the past and recent major
floods. That could be an irresponsible position for the Council to
take.
Regarding Item 3 of the Motion, I
understand that the Council has not yet received up-to-date official serial
flood modelling for the CBD. In my opinion it would also be irresponsible for
the Council to work towards finalization of the CBD PP before that modelling
is available.
With regard to Item 4 of Councillor
Bradley’s motion, I draw Councillors’ attention to the fact that
our Department of Planning, along with the Government Architect and the
Greater Sydney Commission, is constantly calling for better place making
– more effective public consultation – better and more
sustainable urban design – respect for heritage - and so on. Yet
the same government through its Gateway process is encouraging this Council
to create a mini-Manhattan in this heritage-rich precinct. This surely
is blatant official hypocrisy.
In addition to the above issues, is the
stupidity, complexity and overlay of at least 15 (possible More) strategies,
visions other planning instruments that make the development and coherent
planning of such a significant are as the North Parramatta zone (including
amongst others);
A. Parramatta Park.
B. Cumberland Hospital Precinct (East and West)
C. Wisteria Gardens
D. The Fleet St Conglomeration of heritage buildings
E. The Parramatta Goal etc.
All worth of National Heritage listing
and protection.
Now is an opportunity to exclude these
areas from the study and conduct are singular review of the various
strategies and plans so that a coherent vision is achieved that will be
supported by the public. They do not sit well with the proposed CBD PP Plan
and often conflict, there are numerous example were other Cities have
encountered the challenges of Growth and significant Cultural and heritage
areas adjoining.
The Department of Planning and
Councillors will know that the CBD Planning Proposal is not yet determined.
For North Parra there is still time for both the Department and the Council
to rethink, as Councillor Bradley requests.
And there is now an exciting opportunity
for the new Council to lead with a new visionary plan which properly respects
the unique and rich heritage of North Parramatta.
In the interest of the Council, the City
of Parramatta and the CBD area that surrounds, now is your chance to make a
difference by endorsing this motion before Council.
Thank you for your time in considering my
presentation.
STAFF
RESPONSE
No staff response provided.
|
10. Petitions
10.1
|
SUBJECT Boarding
house on 44-46 Wattle St, Rydalmere, NSW 2116
REFERENCE DA/860/2021
FROM Michelle
Garrard
|
|
A petition signed by the public was tabled at the Council
Meeting and reads:
Petition
against boarding house on 44-46 Wattle St, Rydalmere,
NSW 2116
– DA/860/2021
|
3684
|
RESOLVED (Garrard/Esber)
(a)
That the
petition be received and copy of the petition be circulated to all
Councillors.
(b)
Further, that the
petition be referred to the Local Planning Panel.
|
11. For notation
11.1
|
SUBJECT Investment
Report for February 2022
REFERENCE F2022/00105
- D08439431
REPORT OF Tax and Treasury Accountant
|
3685
|
RESOLVED (Pandey/Noack)
That
Council receive and note the Investment Report for February 2022.
|
12. For Council Decision
12.1
|
SUBJECT Minutes
of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meetings held
on Various Dates
REFERENCE F2022/00105
- D08411586
REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer
|
3686
|
RESOLVED (Garrard/Bradley)
(a) That Council note
the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee
Meetings held on 28 September, 26 October and 23
November 2021.
(b) Further, that Council
thank the members of the previous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Advisory Committee for their contributions to Council and for their
longstanding commitment and advocacy on behalf of the local First Nations
community.
|
12.2
|
SUBJECT Endorsement
of the "Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence Action Plan"
REFERENCE F2022/00105
- D08426032
REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer - Family and Domestic Violence
|
3687
|
RESOLVED (Garrard/Wang)
That Council approve
City of Parramatta’s Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence Action
Plan for implementation.
|
12.3
|
SUBJECT LATE REPORT: Pre-exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Development
Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 195 Church Street, 65-79
Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican
Church) (Deferred Item)
REFERENCE RZ/5/2018 -
D08426967
APPLICANT/S Jattca Pty Ltd
OWNERS St
John's Parramatta Endownment Fund
REPORT OF Team Leader
–Land Use Planning
|
3688
|
RESOLVED (Garrard/Pandey)
(a) That Council accept the draft terms in the ‘Terms Sheet
of Public Benefits’ dated 11 March 2022 as provided at Attachment 1 for
inclusion in the draft Planning Agreement for the St John’s Anglican
Church, that offers the following public benefits:
i. Licence in perpetuity for public access to the
open space surrounding the Cathedral subject to the St Johns Church
maintaining the right to limit some uses on this land.
ii. Stratum dedication of land to enable laneway
between 181 Church Street site and Marsden Street
iii. Temporary vehicle access for 181 Church Street
site to access Hunter Street for 10 years or until the new laneway described
in part ii above is available.
iv. Embellishment of the following land to create
a civic space:
· Church land between the Cathedral building and
Hunter Street
· Portion of road in front of 45 Hunter Street
to be closed and included in the civic space but remain in Council ownership
v. Church to bear the maintenance and liability
for the civic space site (including the Council owned portion) in
perpetuity.
vi. Compensation of $1.1 million for the reduction
in public benefit lost due to the driveway arrangements restricting the size
of the civic space and eliminating the previously proposed laneway.
vii. Compensation of $3.5 million to recognise
Council’s risk from not having the public access recognised on the land
title and accepting limitations outlined in the Church’s Social
Covenant and related to the Church’s operational use of the
land.
(b) That Council delegate authority to the CEO to:
i. negotiate and finalise the legal drafting of
the Planning Agreement and associated Deed of Agreement/Licence in accordance
with the ‘Terms Sheet of Public Benefits’ described in (a) above
and place on public exhibition;
ii. finalise the draft
site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP), as provided at Attachment 3,
for the purpose of public exhibition, subject to further draft amendments
described in the body of this report being resolved; and
iii. to correct any minor inconsistencies or
anomalies of an administrative nature relating to the draft Planning Proposal
(at Attachment 4), draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement documentation that
may arise during their preparation exhibition.
(c) That in response to the Gateway condition that requires
all references to the de-listing of St John’s Parish Hall as an item of
local heritage significance to be removed from the Planning Proposal:-
i. the draft Planning Proposal be amended
accordingly, and
ii. Council requests the Department of Planning
and Environment endorse amendments to the Planning Proposal to include a new site specific clause (described in detail in the
Council report of 21 February 2022) that requires, the preparation of a DCP
prior to development consent being granted to development that provides for
the specific matters to be addressed with the inclusion of a note that this
obligation may be satisfied by the making and approval of a concept
development application (also referred to as a Stage 1 Development
Application) consistent with Section 4.23 of the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979.
(d) That the Planning Scheme documents be
exhibited as follows:
i. draft Planning Proposal be exhibited for a minimum of 28 days
commencing no later than 28 March 2022 in accordance with all conditions and
requirements of the Gateway Determination.
ii. if drafting of the Draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement
documentation permits, that these be exhibited concurrently with the Planning
Proposal. However, should these documents not be finalised by 28 March 2022
that separate exhibition of these documents commence no later than 4 April
2022 for no less than 28 days.
(e) That the outcome of the exhibition of
the Planning Scheme be reported back to Council.
(f) Further, that the CEO facilitate discussions with the owners of 181
Church Street, Parramatta on alternate vehicle access arrangements to this
site from Hunter Street in line with the Deed of Agreement attached to the
Applicant’s Planning Agreement during the public exhibition period.
DIVISION A
division was called, the result being:-
AYES: Councillors
Esber, Garrard, Green, Humphries, Noack, Pandey, Siviero, Valjak and Wang
NOES: Councillors
Bradley, Darley, Davis, Maclean, Prociv and Wearne
|
13. NOTICE OF MOTION
13.1
|
SUBJECT CBD
Planning Proposal and DPE’s GML Heritage Report Concerns
REFERENCE F2022/00105
- D08443680
FROM Councillor Phil Bradley
|
3689
|
RESOLVED (Bradley/Pandey)
That consideration of this matter be deferred
pending further consultation with Councillors and Council officers.
DIVISION A
division was called, the result being:-
AYES: Councillors
Bradley, Darley, Davis, Green, Humphries, Maclean, Noack, Pandey, Prociv,
Valjak and Wang
NOES: Councillors
Esber, Garrard, Siviero and Wearne
|
|
Note: Councillor Garrard left the Chamber at 7:18pm and
returned at 7:18pm during the consideration of Item 13.1
|
13.2
|
SUBJECT CBD
Planning Proposal Concerns Regarding Infrastructure Funding, Flooding and
Design
REFERENCE F2022/00105
- D08443717
FROM Councillor Phil Bradley
|
|
MOTION (Bradley/Prociv)
That consideration of this matter be deferred
pending further consultation with Councillors and Council officers.
The motion moved by Councillor Bradley and seconded by
Councillor Prociv on being put was declared LOST.
DIVISION A
division was called, the result being:-
AYES: Councillors
Bradley, Darley, Davis, Maclean and Prociv
NOES: Councillors
Esber, Garrard, Green, Humphries, Noack, Pandey, Siviero, Valjak, Wang and
Wearne
|
14. CONCLUSION OF MEETING
The meeting terminated at 7:33pm.
THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 8 PAGES
ARE THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 21 MARCH
2022 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 28 MARCH 2022.
Chairperson
Council 28 March
2022 Item
13.5
ITEM NUMBER 13.5
SUBJECT LATE
REPORT: Quarterly Budget Review - December 2021
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08435024
REPORT OF Financial Planning and Analysis Manager
CSP
THEME: FAIR
workshop/briefing
date: See consultation Section
PURPOSE:
To present for adoption the December 2021 Quarterly Budget
Review Statement (QBRS).
RECOMMENDATION
(a) That Council
adopt the December 2021 Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) and the Responsible
Accounting Officer’s report on the financial position of the Council (Attachment 1).
i) Further, that Council
approve the revised budget for the 2021/22 financial year:
an operating surplus of $34.1m
ii) capital revenue of $86.2m
iii) capital expenditure of $313.6m.
BACKGROUND
1. Clause 203 of
the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 requires the Responsible
Accounting Officer (Chief Finance and Information Officer) to prepare and
submit to the Council a Quarterly Budget Review Statement that shows by
reference to the estimates of income and expenditure set out in the Operational
Plan, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for the full financial
year.
2. The Responsible Accounting Officer is
also required to report whether the financial position of the Council is
satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
3. The attached December 2021 Quarterly
Budget Review Statement (QBRS) includes an analysis of the reasons for the
major variances from the previously adopted budget. Explanations for major
variances are in line with the parameters previously agreed by Council i.e.
Budget variations greater than +/- 10% of the current budget or greater than
+/- $100,000 of the current budget.
Below is a summary of key variances.
4. The $41.0m increase in the
2020/21 budgeted operating surplus to $34.1m (Sep QR: -$6.9m deficit) is
primarily due to:
i. net gains on asset disposal
of $47.2m relating to the Horwood Place City Centre car park and 70
Macquarie Street.
ii. an increase in operating revenue
of $12.5m, primarily due to increases in capital contributions of $9.1m for
public domain and additional capital grants of $5.9m from Dept Infra &
Planning, offset by: rates & annual charges ($1.9m) lower mainly from a
drop in Sydney Metro and user charges & fees ($1.0m) lower due to a reduction
of income from venues/parks & ovals due to extension of 50% waiver for
permanent hires ($0.4m) and cancellation of Riverside shows ($0.4m).
iii. an increase in operating expenses of ($3.8m)
primarily due to increased expenditure relating to costs associated with the
CBD outdoor dining project ($2.2m) and reclassification of capital projects
deemed to be operating projects ($3.1m). Offset by a $1.1m reduction in other
operating expense from savings in travel, training, council fees and a
reduction in Riverside shows.
5. The $33.7m reduction in capital
expenditure to $313.6m (Sep QR: $347.3m) is primarily due to the re-phasing
of Community Recycling Facility ($14.7m) capital works into 2021/22, inclement
weather and Covid-19 impacts (as detailed in the attached December 2021 QBRS).
CONSULTATION & TIMING
Stakeholder
Consultation
6. The following
stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date
|
Stakeholder
|
Stakeholder Comment
|
Council Officer Response
|
Responsibility
|
Dec21-Feb22
|
Business managers and
Executive
|
Feedback has been incorporated
in the QBRS document
|
Report and budgets updated as
agreed
|
Finance/CFIO
|
Councillor Consultation
7. The following Councillor consultation
has been undertaken in relation to this matter:
Date
|
Councillor
|
Councillor Comment
|
Council Officer Response
|
Responsibility
|
15 Mar 2022
|
Finance Committee
|
NA
|
NA
|
Finance/CFIO
|
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
8. There are no legal implications for
Council associated with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
9. If Council
resolves to approve this report in accordance with the proposed resolution, the
financial impacts on the budget are summarized above and detailed in the
attached QBRS.
Amit Sharma
Financial Planning and Analysis Manager
John Angilley
Chief Finance and Information Officer
Brett Newman
Chief Executive Officer
Attachments:
1⇩
|
QBRS Report Dec 2021
|
16 Pages
|
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 13.5 -
Attachment 1
|
QBRS Report Dec 2021
|
Council 28 March 2022 Item
14.1
ITEM NUMBER 14.1
SUBJECT Peninsula
Park, Wentworth Point
REFERENCE F2022/00105 - D08453092
FROM Councillor Noack
MOTION
(a) That Council advocate to the State
Government on the future of the mixed-use site adjacent to Peninsula Park at
Wentworth Point.
(b) Further, that Council advocate to
Transport for NSW (as landowner) and Landcom (as developer) for commencement of
work in the Peninsula Park to occur promptly.
BACKGROUND
1. No background information provided.
Paul Noack
Councillor
STAFF RESPONSE
2. Council staff have recently received a request from Transport for
NSW for preliminary planning advice on a Planning Proposal Transport for NSW is
preparing to amend the current planning controls for their land adjacent to the
Peninsula Park to consolidate onto this site the mixed use development
floorspace that would otherwise have been delivered under the current planning
controls on the nearby site for the currently proposed High School.
3. The submitted documentation is currently being reviewed by Council
staff who will provide formal technical advice to Transport for NSW. This will
inform preparation of a Planning Proposal that will assessed by Council staff
and then reported to the Local Planning Panel and to Council for a decision on
whether or not it should proceed to Gateway.
4. Council staff have, and will continue, to advocate for the prompt
commencement and completion of work in the Peninsula Park, however Council has
not been provided with a timeline for the delivery of the park by the State
Government. The final layout of the park will be influenced by the current High
School proposal that is being assessed by the Department of Planning and
Environment and the potential Planning Proposal noted above.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
5. Council staff are actively working on this matter and is therefore
within allocated resources and budget.
Paul Noack
Councillor
Noack
Jennifer
Concato
Executive
Director City Planning and Design
Brett Newman
Chief
Executive Officer
Attachments:
1⇩
|
Peninsula Park Map
|
6 Pages
|
|
Item 14.1 -
Attachment 1
|
Peninsula Park Map
|